2008 Presidental Election: Obama v McCain

escap wrote: Just wanted to say regarding this thread, does it not alarm any of you that you're all pretty much agreeing with each other? Is "group think" not a scary concept to anyone else?

Unfortunately, I'm not particularly impressed by many things about McCain so I can't offer to much diversity of opinion here either

reminds me of a thread long ago about craving a rightwing nutcase on the board just to get the juices flowing.

escap wrote: Just wanted to say regarding this thread, does it not alarm any of you that you're all pretty much agreeing with each other? Is "group think" not a scary concept to anyone else? Unfortunately, I'm not particularly impressed by many things about McCain so I can't offer to much diversity of opinion here either, but in a thread entitled "Obama v McCain", I couldn't help but notice that it reads like, "McCain sucks, right" "Yes indeed" "What a bastard" "Good point, but did you consider the fact that he's also a fool?".... reminds me of a thread long ago about craving a rightwing nutcase on the board just to get the juices flowing.

I'll see what I can do to stir things up, but in the mean time wanted to just point this herd mentality out and hopefully inspire someone to think outside the box just in principle....

Boygabriel wrote: 4. As Carnivore said, any intelligent debate is welcome. I'd love to hear someone defend McCain's positions on Iraq, the economy, foreign policy, abortion rights, and some of the other things I've been posting about. He's dumb and Barack is cool.

Boygabriel wrote: 3. I must say Daver's been doing a pretty good job as devil's (or conservative's) advocate, so you'll have company.

Boygabriel wrote: The societies and histories of Japan (and Germany) vs Iraq are so divergent. Not to mention the fact Japan was a fairly developed country that lost a traditional war (WWII). How can you possibly compare that conflict to the clusterf*ck of what's going on in Iraq (and across the whole friggin Middle East) between Sunni and Shia, moderate Shia and extremist Shia, Iran-allied Shia and Iraqi national Shia, terrorist and non-terrorist Shia? Oh, and of course the various sub-conflicts that, you know, actually involve us.

Boygabriel wrote: But on your point, the Democrats have shallowly hammered McCain on his "100 years" comment by painting it as "100 years of war". Obviously that's not what McCain meant.

Barack Obama and John McCain are busy demonstrating that in close elections during tough economic times, candidates for president can be economically illiterate and irresponsibly populist.

In Raleigh, N.C., last week, Sen. Obama promised, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."

Set aside for a minute that Jimmy Carter passed a "windfall profits tax" to devastating effect, putting American oil companies at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors, virtually ending domestic energy exploration, and making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas.

Instead ask this: Why should we stop with oil companies? They make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales. Why doesn't Mr. Obama slap a windfall profits tax on sectors of the economy that have fatter margins? Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales. Call out Mr. Obama's Windfall Profits Police!

It's not the profit margin, but the total number of dollars earned that is the problem, Mr. Obama might say. But if that were the case, why isn't he targeting other industries? Oil and gas companies made $86.5 billion in profits last year. At the same time, the financial services industry took in $498.5 billion in profits, the retail industry walked away with $137.5 billion, and information technology companies made off with $103.4 billion. What kind of special outrage does Mr. Obama have for these companies?

Sen. McCain doesn't support the windfall profits tax, but he can be as hostile to profits as Mr. Obama. "[W]e should look at any incentives that we are giving," Mr. McCain said in May, even as he talked up a gas tax "holiday" that would give drivers incentives to burn more gasoline.

This past Thursday, Mr. McCain came close to advocating a form of industrial policy, saying, "I'm very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made, but their failure to invest in alternate energy."

But oil and gas companies report that they have invested heavily in alternative energy. Out of the $46 billion spent researching alternative energy in North America from 2000 to 2005, $12 billion came from oil and gas companies, making the industry one of the nation's largest backers of wind and solar power, biofuels, lithium-ion batteries and fuel-cell technology.

Such investments, however, are not as important as money spent on technologies that help find and extract more oil. Because oil companies invested in innovation and technology, they are now tapping reserves that were formerly thought to be unrecoverable. Maybe we are all better off when oil companies invest in what they know, not what they don't.

And do we really want the government deciding how profits should be invested? If so, should Microsoft be forced to invest in Linux-based software or McDonald's in weight-loss research?

Mr. McCain's angry statement shows a lack of understanding of the insights of Joseph Schumpeter, the 20th century economist who explained that capitalism is inherently unstable because a "perennial gale of creative destruction" is brought on by entrepreneurs who create new goods, markets and processes. The entrepreneur is "the pivot on which everything turns," Schumpeter argued, and "proceeds by competitively destroying old businesses."

Most dramatic change comes from new businesses, not old ones. Buggy whip makers did not create the auto industry. Railroads didn't create the airplane. Even when established industries help create new ones, old-line firms are often not as nimble as new ones. IBM helped give rise to personal computers, but didn't see the importance of software and ceded that part of the business to young upstarts who founded Microsoft.

So why should Mr. McCain expect oil and gas companies to lead the way in developing alternative energy? As with past technological change, new enterprises will likely be the drivers of alternative energy innovation.

Messrs. Obama and McCain both reveal a disturbing animus toward free markets and success. It is uncalled for and self-defeating for presidential candidates to demonize American companies. It is understandable that Mr. Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate, would endorse reckless policies that are the DNA of the party he leads. But Mr. McCain, a self-described Reagan Republican, should know better.

Boygabriel wrote: Can someone PLEASE help me try to take John McCain seriously:

“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.”

-from this article

Part of his plan to balance the budget in his first term is to 'win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan' and spend that money elsewhere?!

WTF?

McCain’s emphasis on balancing the budget is likely to excite conservatives, who have remained skeptical of his candidacy, and provoke derision from Democrats, who will argue that it’s a warmed-over version of proposals that President Bush failed to enact.